The Libertarian Role or "Don't be with stupid; talk about simple fixes"

[Jon Henke]

Let me preface my rantings with a paragraph no one will read. I actually like Libertarians. The ones I've met are young energetic people who are willing to more than argue, actually debate issues and views. They extend discussions and policies beyond the predictable evangelical topics. Libertarians actually mean what they say. They get excited about politics. They volunteer.

My complaint is the piper they choose to follow.


My problem with Congressman Mr. Dr. Ron Paul Esquire, is (1.) the unquestioning and unyielding adulation that his supporters have for each idea or even biographical fact about him. We saw it first with Ralph Nader in 2000, then Paul, and in Mc-Supersized form for Obama. (2.) the fact that he would sound so much smarter if he would just stop talking two sentences before he actually does - although to be fair that would apply to almost every politician (3.) that after all that hooping and hollering by his supporters that we all put up with everyday during the primary he garnered only 27 delegates. (and this is where people tell me he finished first in the Louisiana Pancake caucus that binds 1/3rd of the states votes) which clearly means that either his support was so evenly spread across the country that it was a statistical blip in actual totals or that his vast Internet support was (as with Obamas hugh numbers of on-line small dollar donations) the work of a few power players with multiple accounts, spam bots, and unverified registrations.


The point is:
Libertarians need to stop acting like the inflamed appendix of the Republican party.

They need to stop shouting ideas that sound stupid no matter how right they are.

If I'm trying to go out and engage undecided voters or reclaim former republicans I can't go out there and say the "FDA should be abolished because it is ineffective, incompetent, that it can't protect us from deadly food, that its blocking life saving drugs and its costing too much." I can't say that and go up against a candidate that just says he'll increase the size of government to 'solve' the problem and never mentions how or how much it will cost.

I can't say that the federal government has no business in education. That its a state issue and we should abolish the DOE. Even if I'm right about schools being run into the ground by bad teachers, unions, and multicultural studies mandates, I'd be lucky to get even 10% of the mothers who have kids in public schools.

I'm willing to bet I could get 20+ million votes simply by being the republican on the ticket. I could get 40+ million simply yelling expletives at members of congress. But I can't get 65 million by saying anything that sounds stupid. McCain didn't lose the election on Nov 4th. He lost it on September 15th. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."

God's honest truth McCain was right. The core tenets of American capitalism are still there. Ford and GM have huge profits in the Chinese auto market and if they cut capacity they would have the same profits at home. Citi, Wachovia, BOA still have the same millions of commercial bank customers they had six months ago each with Billions of ATM fees, ISF fees, and other fees which make the majority of the commerical bank income each month. The current situation are the consequences the simple retraction of a housing market that was too big to NOT fail. It is being made worse by the back and forth promises of bailouts, automated trading, and panicking inexperienced investors too young to remember the last real contractions of 1987. The sky is not falling, the fundamentals of the American economy are strong and are still the strongest in the world. But what McCain said, though absolutely true in every way, sounded stupid.


Libertarians need to come up with ideas that, and the is important now, ACTUALLY SOUND GOOD.

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" - The Newt Gingrich line is possibly the most resounding statement of the election. Unlike "Hope", "Change", or "Joe the plumber" people instantly know what you mean. It didn't require people to pay attention to the news before figuring out what people meant. It wasn't even attached to a new program, bill, or law. It was a simple catch phrase that spun a wildfire driving Americans to pressure congressmen to let the congressional ban expire. In the house, it stopped democrats not up for election cold and forced idle republicans to action. It was the right words, with the right meaning, at the right time.


Like that, libertarians need to be the people talking about the "Simple Fix", "The Easy Win".

Avoid talking massive overhauls, avoid contentious issues, draw people in with short, easy ideas. Be the party of the 'left turn lane' (and that's not a left/right political analogy). Come up with small, effective, and passable ideas that fix bottlenecks, cut red tape, and improve things for a majority of the population.

Even if the idea is not the acme of perfection or doesn't apply to everyone in every situation, it does make progress. More importantly "Simple Fix" ideas resonate, excite people, turns them on and makes them listen to the things you have to say. "Easy Win" ideas makes people ask "Why aren't we doing that?"

The Libertarians need to come up with a ten or twelve point "Simple FIx" plan like the Contract with America. Consisting of concise bullet statements it should be supported with sourced numbers and facts, studies, and supporters.

They don't have to be massive big ideas like a fair tax or abolishing the penny.
Start small, start local, and start by eliminating roadblocks. Abolishing laws generally has less legal challenge than writing new ones.

Easy Fix #1
Let people buy their health insurance across state lines, it means more competition and lower prices. The companies (BC/BS, Aetna and others )already have offices in each state, just under seperate legal entity. The block provides no protections and only allows the compaines to conicidentially price fix in each state market.

[Joe]

While I don't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul and his supporters, I do agree that things need to change on the small local level first.

I would propose easy fix #2 -
Creating multiple chartering authorities for charter schools. In many districts, charter schools need to be approved by the local Board of Ed. before they proceed, however this is an obvious conflict of interest. Opening up the chartering authority to universities, community groups, and other entities allows more opportunity for charter schools to operate and more school choice.

[Jason Taylor]

I think you're on the right track here. I love the Ron Paul guys and gals, I think they're super neat. :)

It's just important for all of us, especially these most gifted of conservative idealists, to realize that the public takes change only a little bit at a time. It took the lefties somewhere between 40 and 80 years to talk America into all of the stupid things they have given us, and it'll take at least another 20-40 years for us to inch America back to a vastly better place. It's important to have the solid beliefs, but to have a long-term plan that is broken up into small, bite-sized short-term action plans.

[James]

Easy Fix # 3 - Enable parents of disruptive or absent children to see the need for education and how bad behavior prevents teachers from doing their job as educators and makes them babysitters. In Paterson, NJ, parents of truant children are not fined or jailed. The parents are required by court to come to the school. This could also be applied to children who are continually disruptive. Allow video cameras in schools to monitor childrens behavior and show parents this behavior.

Easy Fix #4 - Provide tax refunds (not exceeding taxes paid) for private education. This allows lower income families more than others to afford private school for their children, and in these schools educators have much more flexibility to teach morals and discipline children.

[Jean La Rue]

Let's not miss this point:

"Start small, start local, and start by eliminating roadblocks. Abolishing laws generally has less legal challenge than writing new ones."

Eyes will glaze over if we talk about:
"Creating multiple chartering authorities..." yada, yada" The issue is: School Choice
"Allow video cameras in schools to monitor childrens [bad] behavior..." yada, yada. The issue is: "Improving school discipline so teachers can teach and students can learn.

The point is, keep it simple. Don't try to offer explanations about the whys, wherefors, or how to pay for it unless someone pointedly asks. Even then, don't talk about what YOU thinks should be done, talk in terms of what a Republican candidate says they have committed to do.

The Republican Party really must reform and refine it's message to the voter. Just as important, we need to hold the people we elect to a high standard of accomplishment. Rebuilding the Party means that all of us need to talk the talk and walk the walk of conservative Republican ideals. We don't have to agree with each other or the Party on every detail of every issue. But when we disagree, it should be behind closed doors and out of the public eye. The voting public should never see anything except a unified group of Republicans with a shared vision of liberty, prosperity, and individual opportunity for everyone.

[Suzanne]

Well, I can see coming out of the box, that you are a Newt Gingrich fan. He's a very smart fella, but a Council on Foreign Relations member and a long time Washington "insider". I saw him on a tv show, and he minimized Sarah Palin and stressed she is not a "party leader".

I am a Ron Paul supporter and I don't think you have researched Dr. Paul. He's not a lawyer, and doesn't attach esquire to his name. Ron Paul is a consitutionalist. There is nothing in the constitution that mandated congress to have a Board of Education. Article 1 Section 8 is what congress has the power to do. Education is not listed, neither is abortion, drugs, marriage and many other issues that the Federal government has pandered in. Per the 10th amendment in th eBill of Rights, anything that is not covered in the constitution is left to the states and to the people.

I would like to know what problems you have with , Limited government, balanced budgets, non interventionism, sound money, a return to the Constitution? That's Ron Paul.

[Jon Henke]

@Sovereign Curtis
(1.)Libertarians (and I'm talking about republican activists not candidates) should make the plan and should push the plan on politicains of both parties now. Simple Fix principles resonate with the middle and candidates of both parties like to have short sweet acomplishments when they come up for re-election. Actually the Contract with America was extremely succucessful as a piece of legisation, even though many bills were vetoed, some were over-ridden and almost all were reveloutionary.

Tort Reform - passed - vetoed
Term Limits for Congressmen - passed - vetoed
Welfare Reform -passed - vetoed - over ridden

Now 33% rate is an F- but compared to a do nothing congress with a 20% approval rating its a rock star.

@ Suzanne
I am a Newt fan but I am also a Palin fan. There's Washington "insiders" I like and "outsiders" I don't. The "outsider" idea is directed at the low approval rating of the congress (which dropped from 33% in 2006 to 27% now). Its directed at the 'everyman voter' and says the people in washington just don't get it. Which in many ways is true, people in DC, people in Detroit, people on Wall Street, people in San Fran, people in the Treasury just don't get it. But that doesn't mean that all insiders are bad. Its not some all encomsing "USDA Grade A eggs" label that determines the quality of ideas, the ability to listen, or the ability to negotiate.

Theres two ways to deal with the low approval rating. (1) elect outsiders (2) get the people in power to start doing what the people want.

Outsiders do have change but they can be just as ineffective and incopeten, remember Kucienich when he was Mayor of Cincinati. Or even Jimmy Carter.

Frankly I don't care about limited goverment. I don't care about states vs federal. I like most Americans just want someone to lock up the child molsters, secure the border, and stop the terrorists. What I do care about is ineffecive bearucatic goverment. But local goverments don't have an advantage in this regard. Clayton County Georgia is effecivly the Somalia of the US. It has over 16000 active warrants many about to pass the statue of limitations, dis-accredited schools, and a budget shortfall of millions.

If we can eliminate the current mentality of federal and state workers, I believe a strong, technologiclly modern federal administration can create standards share resoruces with States to increase quality of all services while reduce operating costs. I just don't care what the seal on the wall says.

Lastly my problem with non interventionism is it doesn't work and its un-american. To the shores of tripoli, kill the damn pirates and kill any dictator who challenges the US. We've always avoided it until we get bit in the face. I for one, cry no tears over the fact that we won't get to see Saddam celebrate his 84th birthday with a military parade under the crossed swords.

[UTMAN]

I agree that we need to come up with a few simple points that tell people what we do for them. And then we need to have smart people think about these subjects and come up with a real plan. Obama did this, even those there are holes in the plan you can drive a truck through...it was enough to fool enough people to get elected. People like to think that leaders have a plan.

As far as health insurance, I think that there is real promise in Health Savings Accounts. I do not think that the current scheme of health insurance or government provided health insurance is a viable option. Tim Harford in the Undercover Economist, laid out a pretty convincing arguement for Health Savings Accounts.

[David T.]

Jon Henke said:

Lastly my problem with non interventionism is it doesn't work and its un-american.

So...the Founding Fathers of this country were un-American?

I'm hardly surprised by this attitude. It's just more of the same Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity garbage of the last 8 years. The only thing that is really un-American is disregard for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We all know who is guilty of that, even though some don't want to admit it.

[Michael Salaba]

Martin K. said:

Maybe they don't have any of those "quick fixes" because they don't like government solutions and government interference. Typical Republican ploy, "Here's a free market solution that still involves more government."

I think we have a bingo. This mentality of government is the solution to everything is exactly what brought us to this crossroads. The ultimate goal here is party unity and a unified message. It would be quite difficult to be the party of limited constitutional government, strong defense and moral values if we think government has all the answers.

Reagan still is our standard bearer. He was the last great man to unite the party on these principles. Gingrich came close with fiscal responsibility rhetoric. Ron Paul would have done much better if he would have polished and sugar coated his message. We forget that the public has been captivated by the liberal message of money for nothing. We need to call this bluff and return to the party of Reagan.

[David T.]

Actually the Founding Fathers were interventionists; Quasi-War of 1798-1800 and the Barbary Wars 1800-1815. One was due to the fact that American national interests were threatened abroad the other was a response to high seas terrorism.

Should we be fighting every little brush fire war we can? No, absolutely not. However we need to a better job at gauging when it is time to pick up arms and when it isn't. Also we need to get off the GD Marshall Plan for nation building. It is obsolete and does not apply to the Middle East.

Neither case was unprovoked. The French were attacking our trade fleet, and then Barbary pirates were doing the same. The Iraq War, however, was unprovoked. This idea of pre-preemptive war has stayed way past its welcome the last 8 years, as it was clear that Saddam did not pose a serious threat to us. I wouldn't have a problem with military action against Afghanistan after 9/11 if they would have gone after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The qualifier in that last sentence is important. We invaded a sovereign nation, and didn't go after the real threat. I agree with the second half of your post.

[richard rinke]

Suzanne is right and so is Curtis! Newt's contract was a noble idea that was not carried out. If you want a simple answer it's the constitution! Don't politcians swear to uphold the constitution? The answers to all Dr Paul's statements are in it!

[richard rinke]

Dave Davidson said:

Actually the Founding Fathers were interventionists; Quasi-War of 1798-1800 and the Barbary Wars 1800-1815. One was due to the fact that American national interests were threatened abroad the other was a response to high seas terrorism.

Should we be fighting every little brush fire war we can? No, absolutely not. However we need to a better job at gauging when it is time to pick up arms and when it isn't. Also we need to get off the GD Marshall Plan for nation building. It is obsolete and does not apply to the Middle East.

Neither case was unprovoked. The French were attacking our trade fleet, and then Barbary pirates were doing the same. The Iraq War, however, was unprovoked. This idea of pre-preemptive war has stayed way past its welcome the last 8 years, as it was clear that Saddam did not pose a serious threat to us. I wouldn't have a problem with military action against Afghanistan after 9/11 if they would have gone after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The qualifier in that last sentence is important. We invaded a sovereign nation, and didn't go after the real threat. I agree with the second half of your post.